https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Bug ID: 2093674 Summary: Review Request: hsetroot - An imlib2-based wallpaper composer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jani@sinervo.fi QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot.spec SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Yet another wallpaper application, that can set the wallpaper even with compositors like picom Fedora Account System Username: sham1
This application allows the setting of background colors or pictures like xsetroot, but unlike xsetroot, this one works even when an external compositor like picom is active. Being based on imlib2 also gives it access to a multitude of image formats it may use as wallpapers.
----
This package was already approved, but it had some changes applied to it, and I forgot to request a branch for it within the 60 day window, so here's a new review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
--- Comment #1 from Jani Juhani Sinervo jani@sinervo.fi --- *** Bug 2017870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Jani, I tried to use your package and it works for me.
%set_build_flags
This macro should be called automatically now https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck
It doesn't mind if you call it manually as well but you shouldn't need to.
Source checksums
https://github.com/himdel/hsetroot/archive/refs/tags/1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a
This was found by the fedora-review tool. But I also encountered it when downloading the Source0, your Patch0 and tried to apply it using
rpmbuild -bp ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/hsetroot.spec
They don't match
patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.rej error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IBoWJV (%prep)
Can you please take a look?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
--- Comment #3 from Jani Juhani Sinervo jani@sinervo.fi --- Hi.
This macro should be called automatically now https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck
I've now gotten rid of it.
They don't match
Hmm, that's weird. I can't reproduce that error and the patch seems to apply just fine.
Anyway, here's the updated files:
Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot.spec SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you for the change, the package looks good to me now.
Ideally, you should ask upstream to provide a manual page but I won't block the review because of that.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2093674-hsetroot/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
hsetroot.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/hsr-outputs /lib64/libImlib2.so.1 hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64 hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsr-outputs-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64 hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsetroot hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsr-outputs hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-documentation hsetroot-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64 hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsr-outputs-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsr-outputs-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/49/8d7207463cb1450713aa57f663f7c480729c78 ../../../.build-id/49/8d7207463cb1450713aa57f663f7c480729c78 hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/c9/df25d030b54fc32ccf069d46d908c7ab78a5de ../../../.build-id/c9/df25d030b54fc32ccf069d46d908c7ab78a5de 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 13 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/himdel/hsetroot/archive/refs/tags/1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a
Requires -------- hsetroot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libImlib2.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
hsetroot-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
hsetroot-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- hsetroot: hsetroot hsetroot(x86-64)
hsetroot-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hsetroot-debuginfo hsetroot-debuginfo(x86-64)
hsetroot-debugsource: hsetroot-debugsource hsetroot-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2093674 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hsetroot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093674
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-11-10 22:08:26
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com